We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
TENTH CIRCUIT SAYS ROBBERY IS A GUIDELINES VIOLENT CRIME
Ed McCranie pleaded guilty to federal bank robbery, which his presentence report suggested was a crime of violence under United States Sentencing Guidelines 4B1.2(a)(1), just like a prior federal bank robbery and Colorado aggravated robbery. The three convictions made Ed a Guidelines career offender under USSG 4B1.1(a). Ed complained at sentencing that none of his three robberies qualified as a crime of violence, but the district court rejected the argument, sentencing him to 175 months.
Last week, the 10th Circuit affirmed, holding that federal bank robbery, which is taking property by force, violence, or intimidation, qualifies categorically as a crime of violence. Ed argued that because robbery can be accomplished by threatening something other than physical force, such as releasing poison if the teller does not hand over the case, the crime is not a “crime of violence.” But the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in United States v. Castleman knocked down that issue.
Still, Ed contended, robbery can be committed by intimidation, and some people can be intimidated by raising an eyebrow, without any real threat of physical force at all. If one robs by scaring some clerk who is scared of his own shadow, Ed argued, it does not rise to a crime of violence.
Not so, the Circuit said. “We have defined intimidation… as an act by [the] defendant ‘reasonably calculated to put another in fear, or conduct and words calculated to create the impression that any resistance or defiance by the individual would be met by force’… This definition requires the objective threatened use of physical force.” Even the 10th Circuit pattern jury instructions say that to take ‘by means of intimidation’ is to say or do something in such a way that a person of ordinary sensibilities would be fearful of bodily harm’… And then, putting to rest any concerns of the too-timid teller, the instructions clarify that “a taking would not be by ‘means of intimidation’ if the fear, if any, resulted from the alleged victim’s own timidity rather than some intimidating conduct on the part of the defendant. The essence of the offense is the taking of money or property accompanied by intentional, intimidating behavior on the part of the defendant.”
Because intimidation requires an objectively reasonable fear of bodily harm, Tim’s conviction was upheld.
United States v. McCranie, Case No. 17-1058 (10th Cir. May 3, 2018)
– Thomas L. Root
